Nobody likes to be labeled – reduced to just another anonymous member of a group with a quick word or phrase. But reporters and editors consistently strive to keep copy succinct but still accurate.
And there’s the balancing act. How does a writer respect individuals’ complexity while writing about subjects that affect groups of people?
A style manual is the key to keeping terminology fair and consistent. At The Kansas City Star, writers refer to both The Associated Press Stylebook and an internal book. The Star’s own book largely formalizes proper names of local importance, but the AP document covers a wide range of topics, from punctuation and grammar to legal terminology. It tells editors to use “fund raising” instead of “fundraising,” and that there’s no need to spell out the full name of International Business Machines, since most readers know it by the acronym IBM.
The Associated Press Stylebook also helps reporters choose the right word when referring to groups. For example, “Roman Catholic” is the correct term on first reference, but “Catholic” is acceptable later in the same story. “Hispanic” is “the preferred term for those whose ethnic origin is in a Spanish-speaking country. ‘Latino’ is acceptable for ‘Hispanics’ who prefer that term. (The feminine form is ‘Latina.’).” The book also advises using specifics like “Cuban” or “Puerto Rican” when possible.
The rules are useful, but they’re far from perfect. Questions about terminology are frequently subjective, and individuals sometimes don’t like the Stylebook’s call.
A few weeks ago a reader contacted me to call attention to the usage of the word “gay” in a wire story, “The California Supreme Court handed gays a victory Wednesday.” The AP says “gay” is acceptable as a “popular synonym for both male and female homosexuals (n. and adj.),” but my caller thought the word carried an unsavory connotation as a noun.
“I don’t want to sound overly sensitive,” he said. “But there’s just something about hearing ‘gays’ that just sounds so harsh to my ears. I feel the same way about saying ‘blacks,’ too. Don’t you think it’s more civilized sounding to say ‘gay people,’ or ‘black people’?”
Like this reader, I often have a similar reaction when I see those words used as nouns. When editorial page editor Miriam Pepper was readers’ representative, she once wrote about the word “Jew” in a similar context. “Why did I wrinkle up my face when I saw this headline Aug. 8 in The New York Times: ‘First Jew on a major party ticket’?” she asked.
In all these cases, the words are accurate and not objectionable in themselves. But Nichole Wicks, central regional media manager for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, pointed out that the undertone of neutral words could change in context.
“You have to take in consideration how a word would sound if you took it from a plural to a singular,” she said. “You wouldn’t say a person is ‘a gay.’ … Not only is ‘gay people’ more respectful, it just sounds better.” GLAAD’s Media Reference Guide cautions that the word “homosexual” is a “dated clinical term,” and asks journalists to avoid it, even as a style variation to avoid using “gay” too often.
There’s no question that bigots will continue to use words like “Mexicans” or “gays” in a derogatory sense, and many of us have been conditioned to hear these words in that context. That’s no reason to abandon terms that are perfectly accurate when used appropriately.
But it’s also vital to remember that even acceptable words can sound abrasive in the wrong context. Writing about the news is as much art as science.
